Hillary Movie May Be Better as Supreme Court Fodder than Documentary Film
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a case that asks whether a documentary blasting Hillary Clinton is an electioneering communication subject to federal campaign finance restrictions.
The Supreme Court is likely to rule the film, called Hillary: The Movie, has constitutional protection, SCOTUSblog reports in its analysis of the arguments. The blog says justices seemed to “recoil” from sweeping arguments by Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who wants the court to find the movie is subject to the the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The Times says the Supreme Court is considering two questions. The first is whether McCain-Feingold bars broadcast of the movie in certain time periods before elections because it is an “electioneering communication” governed by the law. The second is whether the law violates the First Amendment.
The movie has gotten mostly negative reviews, the New York Times reports. One reviewer cautions that the film is best viewed “while inebriated in the manner of your choosing, and only if you don’t pay $10 for the privilege.”
Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who is defending the movie, says in his briefs that it is “a critical biographical assessment” that provides “historical information about the candidate and, perhaps, some measure of entertainment as well,” according to the Times story.
The Obama Justice Department says the film is actually an infomercial, since its producers wanted to pay a cable company to offer it on demand. “Every element of the film, including the narration, the visual images and audio track, and the selection of clips,” the Department argues it its brief, “advances the clear message that Senator Clinton lacked both the integrity and qualifications to be president of the United States.”
The case is Citizens United v. FEC.
